accomplice instruction in Connecticut

2014It also questions whether the failure to give an accomplice instruction could ever result in manifest injustice, especially because it does not implicate a constitutional right: ‘‘The fact that the failure to give an accomplice instruction does not even implicate a constitutional right; State v. Brown, 187 Conn. 602 , [613–14], 447 A.2d 734 (1982); further undermines the suggestion that it nevertheless implicates that extremely rare type of right that is essential to a fundamen- tally fair and reliable result.

2014It also questions whether the failure to give an accomplice instruction could ever result in manifest injustice, especially because it does not implicate a constitutional right: ‘‘The fact that the failure to give an accomplice instruction does not even implicate a constitutional right; State v. Brown, 187 Conn. 602 , [613–14], 447 A.2d 734 (1982); further undermines the suggestion that it nevertheless implicates that extremely rare type of right that is essential to a fundamen- tally fair and reliable result.

2018(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jackson , supra, 178 Conn. App. at 24 , 173 A.3d 974 .

2018(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jackson , supra, 178 Conn. App. at 24 , 173 A.3d 974 .

2017Our Supreme Court ruled that the trial court reasonably could have found that the evidence "did not indicate mutuality of intent and community of unlawful purpose or that the evidence thereof was so insufficient, inconclusive or ambivalent that an accomplice instruction was not appropriate." Id., at 552 , 613 A.2d 770 .

2017Our Supreme Court ruled that the trial court reasonably could have found that the evidence "did not indicate mutuality of intent and community of unlawful purpose or that the evidence thereof was so insufficient, inconclusive or ambivalent that an accomplice instruction was not appropriate." Id., at 552 , 613 A.2d 770 .

2017Cf. State v. Bree , 136 Conn. App. 1 , 19-20, 43 A.3d 793 (accomplice instruction warranted where witness was named as coconspirator and there was "substantial evidence tending to show that he aided or abetted" commission of charged crime), cert. denied, 305 Conn. 926 , 47 A.3d 885 (2012).

2017Cf. State v. Bree , 136 Conn. App. 1 , 19-20, 43 A.3d 793 (accomplice instruction warranted where witness was named as coconspirator and there was "substantial evidence tending to show that he aided or abetted" commission of charged crime), cert. denied, 305 Conn. 926 , 47 A.3d 885 (2012).

2017Accordingly, the court's failure to give, sua sponte, an accomplice instruction was not "so clearly and obviously an error that it undermines the integrity and fairness of the judicial proceeding necessitating reversal." State v. McClain , supra, 324 Conn. at 820 -21 , 155 A.3d 209 .

2017Accordingly, the court's failure to give, sua sponte, an accomplice instruction was not "so clearly and obviously an error that it undermines the integrity and fairness of the judicial proceeding necessitating reversal." State v. McClain , supra, 324 Conn. at 820 -21 , 155 A.3d 209 .

2017Accordingly, the court's failure to give, sua sponte, an accomplice instruction was not "so clearly and obviously an error that it undermines the integrity and fairness of the judicial proceeding necessitating reversal." State v. McClain , supra, 324 Conn. at 820 -21 , 155 A.3d 209 .

2017Accordingly, the court's failure to give, sua sponte, an accomplice instruction was not "so clearly and obviously an error that it undermines the integrity and fairness of the judicial proceeding necessitating reversal." State v. McClain , supra, 324 Conn. at 820 -21 , 155 A.3d 209 .

2014Moreover, if affording [review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989)] to nonconstitutional claims of instructional error regarding general principles of credibility ‘trivi- alize[s] the constitution’; State v. Bond, 49 Conn. App. 183, 192 , 713 A.2d 906 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 915 , 722 A.2d 808 (1998); then transforming the plain error standard into a mere demonstration of harm, when it comes to those same, unpreserved, nonconstitutional claims, cannot help but trivialize the class of ‘truly extraordinary’ cases for which plain error is usually reserved.’’

2014Moreover, if affording [review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989)] to nonconstitutional claims of instructional error regarding general principles of credibility ‘trivi- alize[s] the constitution’; State v. Bond, 49 Conn. App. 183, 192 , 713 A.2d 906 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 915 , 722 A.2d 808 (1998); then transforming the plain error standard into a mere demonstration of harm, when it comes to those same, unpreserved, nonconstitutional claims, cannot help but trivialize the class of ‘truly extraordinary’ cases for which plain error is usually reserved.’’

2014Moreover, if affording [review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989)] to nonconstitutional claims of instructional error regarding general principles of credibility ‘trivi- alize[s] the constitution’; State v. Bond, 49 Conn. App. 183, 192 , 713 A.2d 906 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 915 , 722 A.2d 808 (1998); then transforming the plain error standard into a mere demonstration of harm, when it comes to those same, unpreserved, nonconstitutional claims, cannot help but trivialize the class of ‘truly extraordinary’ cases for which plain error is usually reserved.’’

2014Moreover, if affording [review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989)] to nonconstitutional claims of instructional error regarding general principles of credibility ‘trivi- alize[s] the constitution’; State v. Bond, 49 Conn. App. 183, 192 , 713 A.2d 906 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 915 , 722 A.2d 808 (1998); then transforming the plain error standard into a mere demonstration of harm, when it comes to those same, unpreserved, nonconstitutional claims, cannot help but trivialize the class of ‘truly extraordinary’ cases for which plain error is usually reserved.’’

2014Moreover, if affording [review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989)] to nonconstitutional claims of instructional error regarding general principles of credibility ‘trivi- alize[s] the constitution’; State v. Bond, 49 Conn. App. 183, 192 , 713 A.2d 906 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 915 , 722 A.2d 808 (1998); then transforming the plain error standard into a mere demonstration of harm, when it comes to those same, unpreserved, nonconstitutional claims, cannot help but trivialize the class of ‘truly extraordinary’ cases for which plain error is usually reserved.’’

2014Moreover, if affording [review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989)] to nonconstitutional claims of instructional error regarding general principles of credibility ‘trivi- alize[s] the constitution’; State v. Bond, 49 Conn. App. 183, 192 , 713 A.2d 906 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 915 , 722 A.2d 808 (1998); then transforming the plain error standard into a mere demonstration of harm, when it comes to those same, unpreserved, nonconstitutional claims, cannot help but trivialize the class of ‘truly extraordinary’ cases for which plain error is usually reserved.’’

2012Our review of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to support the defendant’s request to charge; State v. Stevenson, 53 Conn. App. 551, 576 , 733 A.2d 253 , cert. denied, 250 Conn. 917 , 734 A.2d 990 (1999); reveals that, although Santiago did not confess to being an accomplice in the Shelton robbery, an accomplice instruction was nevertheless warranted under the facts of this case.

2012Our review of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to support the defendant’s request to charge; State v. Stevenson, 53 Conn. App. 551, 576 , 733 A.2d 253 , cert. denied, 250 Conn. 917 , 734 A.2d 990 (1999); reveals that, although Santiago did not confess to being an accomplice in the Shelton robbery, an accomplice instruction was nevertheless warranted under the facts of this case.

2012Our review of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to support the defendant’s request to charge; State v. Stevenson, 53 Conn. App. 551, 576 , 733 A.2d 253 , cert. denied, 250 Conn. 917 , 734 A.2d 990 (1999); reveals that, although Santiago did not confess to being an accomplice in the Shelton robbery, an accomplice instruction was nevertheless warranted under the facts of this case.

2012Our review of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to support the defendant’s request to charge; State v. Stevenson, 53 Conn. App. 551, 576 , 733 A.2d 253 , cert. denied, 250 Conn. 917 , 734 A.2d 990 (1999); reveals that, although Santiago did not confess to being an accomplice in the Shelton robbery, an accomplice instruction was nevertheless warranted under the facts of this case.

2011Id.

2011Id.

2011We have recognized two exceptions to this general rule, however: the complaining witness exception and the accomplice exception." [Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.]); see also State v. Ortiz, 252 Conn. 533, 561 , 747 A.2d 487 (2000) (defendant generally is not entitled to special credibility instruction unless witness falls into one of two specific exceptions); State v. Cooper, 182 Conn. 207 , 212 n. 5, 438 A.2d 418 (1980) ("We do not suggest that ... a criminal defendant would be entitled to an instruction singling out any witness who testifies for the state and highlighti

2011We have recognized two exceptions to this general rule, however: the complaining witness exception and the accomplice exception." [Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.]); see also State v. Ortiz, 252 Conn. 533, 561 , 747 A.2d 487 (2000) (defendant generally is not entitled to special credibility instruction unless witness falls into one of two specific exceptions); State v. Cooper, 182 Conn. 207 , 212 n. 5, 438 A.2d 418 (1980) ("We do not suggest that ... a criminal defendant would be entitled to an instruction singling out any witness who testifies for the state and highlighti

2006Because the failure to give the accomplice instruction does not violate a constitutional right, it is the defendant’s burden to show its harmfulness.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Schmidt, 92 Conn. App. 665, 672 , 886 A.2d 854 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 908 , 894 A.2d 989 (2006).

2006Because the failure to give the accomplice instruction does not violate a constitutional right, it is the defendant’s burden to show its harmfulness.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Schmidt, 92 Conn. App. 665, 672 , 886 A.2d 854 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 908 , 894 A.2d 989 (2006).

2006Because the failure to give the accomplice instruction does not violate a constitutional right, it is the defendant’s burden to show its harmfulness.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Schmidt, 92 Conn. App. 665, 672 , 886 A.2d 854 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 908 , 894 A.2d 989 (2006).

2006Because the failure to give the accomplice instruction does not violate a constitutional right, it is the defendant’s burden to show its harmfulness.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Schmidt, 92 Conn. App. 665, 672 , 886 A.2d 854 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 908 , 894 A.2d 989 (2006).

2006Because the failure to give the accomplice instruction does not violate a constitutional right, it is the defendant’s burden to show its harmfulness.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Schmidt, 92 Conn. App. 665, 672 , 886 A.2d 854 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 908 , 894 A.2d 989 (2006).

2006Because the failure to give the accomplice instruction does not violate a constitutional right, it is the defendant’s burden to show its harmfulness.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Schmidt, 92 Conn. App. 665, 672 , 886 A.2d 854 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 908 , 894 A.2d 989 (2006).

2005Because the failure to give the accomplice instruction does not violate a constitutional right, it is the defendant’s burden to show its harmfulness.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taheri, 41 Conn. App. 147, 153 , 675 A.2d 458 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 931 , 677 A.2d 1374 (1996).

2005Because the failure to give the accomplice instruction does not violate a constitutional right, it is the defendant’s burden to show its harmfulness.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taheri, 41 Conn. App. 147, 153 , 675 A.2d 458 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 931 , 677 A.2d 1374 (1996).

2005Because the failure to give the accomplice instruction does not violate a constitutional right, it is the defendant’s burden to show its harmfulness.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taheri, 41 Conn. App. 147, 153 , 675 A.2d 458 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 931 , 677 A.2d 1374 (1996).

2005Because the failure to give the accomplice instruction does not violate a constitutional right, it is the defendant’s burden to show its harmfulness.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taheri, 41 Conn. App. 147, 153 , 675 A.2d 458 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 931 , 677 A.2d 1374 (1996).

2005Because the failure to give the accomplice instruction does not violate a constitutional right, it is the defendant’s burden to show its harmfulness.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taheri, 41 Conn. App. 147, 153 , 675 A.2d 458 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 931 , 677 A.2d 1374 (1996).

2005Because the failure to give the accomplice instruction does not violate a constitutional right, it is the defendant’s burden to show its harmfulness.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taheri, 41 Conn. App. 147, 153 , 675 A.2d 458 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 931 , 677 A.2d 1374 (1996).

2003“In State v. Shindell, 195 Conn. 128 , 486 A.2d 637 (1985), [our Supreme Court] articulated the rule regarding instructions involving accomplice witnesses. [The court] held that where it is warranted by the evidence, it is the court’s duty to llcaution the jury to scrutinize carefully the testimony if the jury finds that the witness intentionally assisted in the commission, or if he assisted or aided or abetted in the commission, of the offense with which the defendant is charged.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ortiz, supra, 562 .

2003“In State v. Shindell, 195 Conn. 128 , 486 A.2d 637 (1985), [our Supreme Court] articulated the rule regarding instructions involving accomplice witnesses. [The court] held that where it is warranted by the evidence, it is the court’s duty to llcaution the jury to scrutinize carefully the testimony if the jury finds that the witness intentionally assisted in the commission, or if he assisted or aided or abetted in the commission, of the offense with which the defendant is charged.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ortiz, supra, 562 .

1996State v. Hinckley, 198 Conn. 77, 87-88 , 502 A.2d 388 (1985). “ ‘Whether in the interest of justice we notice this failure to give the accomplice instruction as plain error depends in part on whether the failure was harmful.

1996State v. Hinckley, 198 Conn. 77, 87-88 , 502 A.2d 388 (1985). “ ‘Whether in the interest of justice we notice this failure to give the accomplice instruction as plain error depends in part on whether the failure was harmful.